Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Things people blamed on bicycles

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 852 posts

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#251

Post by thaumasiotes »

jokoon wrote: post #248

I often discuss on the french subreddit, and it's crazy how hard some people fight back giving up their cars. The recurring excuse is a long commute and bad availability of public transit. Most people don't have a long commute, since public transit covers most french citizens, but weirdly there is a very vocal minority who live in the middle of nowhere. I keep explaining to them that they can keep driving since they'…

> I keep explaining to them that they can keep driving since they're a minority so it's not such a big problem, but that they should also consider moving near train stations.

We had train stations before we had cars. This tends to suggest that train stations are worse than cars.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#252

Post by davisoneee »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #239
davisoneee wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if a driver has to 'squeeze past', they are a bad driver. if a driver is driving so close that they couldn't react to a cyclist falling, they are a bad driver. You should drive within safe limits. If you cannot brake in the distance between you and the car in front, you are _too close_. If you squeeze to overtake, you are too close. Potholes exist. Wind exists. In the UK, the (edit) guidance is that you should pass a…

> if a driver has to 'squeeze past', they are a bad driver if they do not kill you, they are not. or maybe if you are scared of other road users and need a "safe space" you aren't a good road user. just maybe > if a driver is driving so close that they couldn't react to a cyclist falling, they are a bad welcome to the reality. I'm not driving too close to you, you are zig-zaging in the middle of the street and you we…

edit: and to follow on from your significant edits/addendums

>> if a driver is driving so close that they couldn't react to a cyclist falling, they are a bad

> welcome to the reality.

So you are admitting that they are bad drivers, and thats just reality? Ok. I'm saying we should face reality and give ourselves space to fuck up with less consequence.

Again, you seem very confident in your _own_ abilities. I don't know them. I just know that very few drivers ever consider _themselves_ to be at fault. Overconfidence.

I am comfortable weaving in and out of busy traffic. I can hold 20mph+ comfortably. I ride both for commuting and recreation, and have done 40mph+ on my bike. That doesn't stop me being able to see that other drivers are bad, and even if I know what I'm doing, can hope for society to be better.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#253

Post by jnsaff2 »

jokoon wrote: post #248

I often discuss on the french subreddit, and it's crazy how hard some people fight back giving up their cars. The recurring excuse is a long commute and bad availability of public transit. Most people don't have a long commute, since public transit covers most french citizens, but weirdly there is a very vocal minority who live in the middle of nowhere. I keep explaining to them that they can keep driving since they'…

In my local EV forum there are a lot of people who join just to come and say: EV's are wrong because: "it doesn't stimulate my hearing, just no feeling without the engine growl", "charging something something", "what about road trips", yadayada.

I guess people who don't want to change their habits feel threatened somehow? Because deep inside they understand that the change is correct? I don't know, this is all super weird.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#254

Post by Jochim »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #239
davisoneee wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if a driver has to 'squeeze past', they are a bad driver. if a driver is driving so close that they couldn't react to a cyclist falling, they are a bad driver. You should drive within safe limits. If you cannot brake in the distance between you and the car in front, you are _too close_. If you squeeze to overtake, you are too close. Potholes exist. Wind exists. In the UK, the (edit) guidance is that you should pass a…

> if a driver has to 'squeeze past', they are a bad driver if they do not kill you, they are not. or maybe if you are scared of other road users and need a "safe space" you aren't a good road user. just maybe > if a driver is driving so close that they couldn't react to a cyclist falling, they are a bad welcome to the reality. I'm not driving too close to you, you are zig-zaging in the middle of the street and you we…

I find it kind of funny that your stance is basically "It's never my fault". Try to self reflect at least a little when you're attempting to make a point.

> let's not pretend that the majority of cyclists are Tour de France participants, they are usually terrible.

Let's not pretend that the majority of drivers are Formula 1 participants, they are usually terrible.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#255

Post by dazc »

atoav wrote: post #137
montebicyclelo wrote: post #114

Cycling is cheap, often faster than driving (in my city), healthy, less noisy, creates vastly less pollution, less dangerous to pedastrians... And I'd guess that about 95% of drivers that I come across are respectful of the danger they present - overtaking with enough space, and not at too high a speed (my city doesn't have great bike lanes). Unfortunately, a typical journey involves passing more than 20 cars, which…

This kind of driver is the same that would accelerate towards you as you (legally) cross a road only to stop at a red light 50m behind you – a red light was clearly visible from where they were when they saw you. For them driving is just about their own emotion. The moment they see someone "who deserves it" their emotion takes over and their brain switches off. People like that should have their driving license taken…

I see this nearly everyday and wonder how it took billions of years to produce a species which is so dumb?

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#256

Post by peoplefromibiza »

_joe wrote: post #237
davisoneee wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if a driver has to 'squeeze past', they are a bad driver. if a driver is driving so close that they couldn't react to a cyclist falling, they are a bad driver. You should drive within safe limits. If you cannot brake in the distance between you and the car in front, you are _too close_. If you squeeze to overtake, you are too close. Potholes exist. Wind exists. In the UK, the (edit) guidance is that you should pass a…

OP lives in Rome, where the average driver mentality is somewhere between "need for speed" and "carmageddon". Basically no one is ever willing to wait for anyone else, as OP's reasoning shows pretty adamantly. Of course they're grossly incorrect.

Worst drivers I've seen are not in Rome.

It used to be like that around 2000s, things have vastly improved here though.

Have you ever tried Barcelona or New York or Paris or Krakow or Milan or, god forbid it, Naples?

Prejudices are fun, but usually they are grossly incorrect.

Also as I've said, I drive very little (less than 2.000km/year) and cyclists in Rome are still from Rome. they are not Martians so their mentality must be the same of everybody else don't you think?

if romans are bad drivers, isn't it safe to assume they are also bad cyclists?

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#257

Post by 411111111111111 »

moffkalast wrote: post #246
DoubleFree wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem of dangerous interactions between drivers and cyclists is much smaller here in the Netherlands, mainly due to two reasons. The first reason is the infrastructure, both visible and invisible. Separated bicycle lanes are commonplace and in the few places where they intersect with car traffic, care is taken to make crossing safe and comfortable. This visible infrastructure is complemented by the concept of "…

> Going out for drinks? Bike. As long as you don't actually drink anything hah. Everyone's a designated driver with bikes.

Tbf, the danger of drunk cycling is significantly lower to third parties vs driving in a car. And you're unlikely to succeed if you're too drunk as well, as you still need to balance - which drunk people can't.

It's still illegal in most places however, so your point stands

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#258

Post by dazc »

grecy wrote: post #173
kevingadd wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just this morning I was walking down the street on a sidewalk and as I crossed in front of a driveway - having checked first - a car pulled out of the garage right up against my leg and stopped, and when I stepped away they started moving again to get close. The stuff people do in cars when they don't have right of way is absolutely deranged sometimes.

A lot of people have no idea of the destructive power of the three ton death machine they are in command of. For that reason I think it should be mandatory to volunteer in a crash recovery ward at a hospital for 100 hours before getting a drivers license.

These people never consider the possibility they will actually hit something, their driving skills being so above average and all..

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#259

Post by rocgf »

moffkalast wrote: post #246
DoubleFree wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem of dangerous interactions between drivers and cyclists is much smaller here in the Netherlands, mainly due to two reasons. The first reason is the infrastructure, both visible and invisible. Separated bicycle lanes are commonplace and in the few places where they intersect with car traffic, care is taken to make crossing safe and comfortable. This visible infrastructure is complemented by the concept of "…

> Going out for drinks? Bike. As long as you don't actually drink anything hah. Everyone's a designated driver with bikes.

Cycling drunk is technically illegal, but often unenforced in the Netherlands. You should see the thousands of obviously 'drunk' people leaving festivals on bikes, under the eyes of the police.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#260

Post by abainbridge »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #207
pembrook wrote: post #178

Think folks are missing the point here. The idea of this thread isn’t that bicycles are uniquely singled out for ridicule. These article snippets all come from a time when the bicycle was just invented and usage was growing fast (eg like any new tech). In fact, I think they were taken from a defunct Twitter account called pessimists archive. The point is that mass media will always court controversy and bemoan any ne…

Clickbait of their time. No need to incorrectly cute a study either!

Agreed. The lesson I take from this is that people/the media love to say X is bad because of Y. If they don't present evidence then we should probably ignore the claim.
Post reply on HN